I have to admit I am really not following this Al Gore–masseuse story. To be frank, the idea of Mr. Global Warming wearing anything less than a $2,000 suit nauseates me. But what has been interesting is the mainstream media’s treatment of the story. As with former VP candidate John Edwards’ extramarital affair, there seems to be a fake interest. It’s as if the media is covering it because they have to, not because they want to.
True, Gore doesn’t currently hold political office, but no one seems to wonder how these revelations will affect the Democrat Party. It’s certainly not the breathless coverage the media devoted to Mark Foley, Mark Sanford, or Larry Craig, that’s for damn sure. During the non-stop reportage in the mainstream media and lefty commentary shows, you would’ve thought that these guys’ scandals marked the end of the Republican Party forever!
There’s also something else interesting with the Al Gore sex scandal that’s very reminiscent of the John Edwards one: Absolutely no outrage from the establishment feminists:
Jeannie DeAngelis, who blogs at www.jeannie-ology.com, also notices the loud silence of the feminists:
… Feminists reacted with shocked indignation over the alleged treatment of Anita Hill, a sister with a prestigious Juris Doctor from Yale Law School. Molly Hagerty has a degree in Liberal Studies fromPortland State University and a professional diploma from Oregon School of Massage, which might explain tepid feminist reaction to a service provider toting a collapsible massage table daring to make an accusation against a liberal icon.
On the feminist scale of offensive behavior, a liberal man groping a masseuse just doesn’t carry the same level of transgression as a conservative judge insulting a female law professor.
Like liberal women, liberal men also tend to extend broad deference to Anita Hill types. It appears that while attending global warming conferences or environmental colloquiums Al Gore conducted himself like a gentleman and a scholar. However, back at the hotel, amorous “Call me Al” allegedly felt comfortable enough to be predatory toward a helpless woman whom the left could readily relegate to the disposable “trailer park trash“ pile along with Paula Jones and Juanita Broderick.
On the left, liberal coupled with the word male connotes unquestioning support for the feminist agenda. Unlike conservative troglodyte-oppressors, the left’s political fraternity proudly toutsmeninist-politicians renowned in feminist circles as above sexual harassment reproach. Liberal men are esteemed as partners with enlightened females co-laboring for the advancement of the feminist cause.
Based on indifferent reaction from feminist circles it appears as long as naughty boys are liberal, women on the left are not offended by raunchy male conduct. Could it be that liberal ladies find it easy to overlook attempted rape and sexual harassment charges if the male aggressor is pro-choice and promises to save the planet?
I may be out of the loop, but since Anita Hill attempted to use unproven Coke can stories as a weapon to destroy Clarence Thomas, another “You go girl” group letter has never crossed my path. To the best of my knowledge, the same feminist entourage who eagerly lambasted Judge Thomas and jumped to the defense of Ms. Hill felt little need to communicate with a laundry list of women accusing the perpetually-randy Bill Clinton of everything from indecent exposure to rape.
Unless I missed something, I don’t recall receiving an email blast announcing a Women’s Studies project that included sending a letter of commiseration to the spurned wife of John Edwards who, while Johnny cavorted in hotel rooms with a videographer, suffered alone from advanced terminal cancer. …
I think DeAngelis hits it: I suppose as long as you devote your life to left-liberal causes, you can do anything you want to a woman, even rape her. Just ask a certain W.J. Clinton. But if you’re a conservative/Republican, don’t you dare even look at a woman the wrong way or your career—and the future of your entire party—is doomed.
It demonstrates what Rush (I think) once said: The “women’s rights” movement is just simply women who promote liberalism. Conservative/Republican women need not apply. (I got two words: Sarah Palin). Just as “minority rights” orgs exist to promote liberalism only. The NAACP couldn’t give two s**ts about Clarence Thomas or any black conservative on the political scene these days. And so forth.
Speaking of Rush and the Gore–masseuse scandal, he had a funny quote yesterday:
What happens if there is a consensus that Algore assaulted the massage therapist, should we say then that the debate is over and declare him guilty? I mean, using his own reasoning, if there’s a consensus, he’d be a potential threat that has to be stopped, right?
Hehe. It’s funny ‘cuz it’s true.
Recent Comments